Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Miscellaneous new content

Nancy Reagan comment

This new section,[1] though seemingly true, neutral, and sourced, is a bit of a weight problem. It's already been reverted. From what I can tell a careless offhand comment about Nancy Reagan is just the news of the day, and not even very prominent in the daily news cycle. So my 2 cents is that it's too trivial by far to mention in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, to give this little story any attention would make us look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It is a good example of undue weight. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree too. Tvoz/talk 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret service code name

I personally think that his secret service codname, "renegade",[2] is also too unimportant for his bio. It would make a nice addition to an article about secret service code names, if there is one.Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama II

"Barack Hussein Obama II"??? --Kitfox.it (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the man's name. What's your question? AmiDaniel (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in an earlier section, conservative critics have unfortunately made Obama's middle name into a pejorative slur, as they attempted to tie him to Isalmofascism. So the simple "we should make the infobox just like the ones of other presidents" matter is not really a simple matter as it appears. Also, I question the "II". Has Obama ever used the suffix to identify himself, outside of mention on the birth certificate? Do reliable sources commonly note a "II" ? Seems to be touching on the same issues as the biracial debate. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Americans tried to turn his middle name into a slur (and that some overseas are delighted with his middle name) does not change the fact that it is his middle name. It would be more POV -- and frankly, would give a victory intolerance -- to break with our convention just to spare him from the smear. The election is over. He won. He's not a vulnerable guy right now. He can take it. I believe that plenty of reliable sources identify his formal birth name as "II", and that here too there is a convention to use the exact birth name in the very beginning of the lead. I don't know much about the infobox conventions though - that is an edit war / dispute I really do not want to touch. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So it must be different than other article's because conservatives may use it as a pejorative? Well what about those that want it out because of the exact opposite reason?? That is the kind of thing I'm talking about. If that is his name it should be treated like similar articles. The reader could form their own opinion, after all it is his name Landon1980 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So now you've perked my curiosity. Is there an established convention for the use of a full name in an infobox? It seems that a full, birth name is almost always used (or at least indicated) in the lead sentence to an article, but this seems to be quite inconsistent in infoboxes. A quick glance through our most recent presidents shows that George Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, etc., have their full names in the infobox, while earlier presidents--Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, George Washington--do not. Similarly, Michelle Obama's infobox does not read "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama", and Malcolm X's infobox reads "Malcolm X". My personal interpretation of the established convention is that an infobox identifies the topic of the article using his common name (that is, his most widely recognized name), rather than his proper name. That said, I personally am completely indifferent on what name is used in the infobox; I just hope that the reasons for selecting whatever name is selected are motivated by an interest in clearly identifying the topic and providing information in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than political or personal interests. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I was, and still am, an avid supporter of Obama, but my personal support for his candidacy is not at all a motivating factor in my opinion on this topic. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So basically what we have found is that there is no clear or consistent pattern across the board, so that should take care of the "let's do it like all the others" argument. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone correct the template again. The problem now is that Happy22 has not responded above (I don't think he knows about my guideline correction), so I left a note on his talk page. Perhaps he will self-revert. Modocc (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it, I was totally ignorant about the discussion topic "Infobox format"... but what's the full official name of Silvio Berlusconi? Joking, ciaoo!--Kitfox.it (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded above. Happyme22 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's 2004 speech

I don't know about you but I find this edit[3] excessive. First, an undue (though not POV) amount of detail to the question of which networks carried the speech when. Frankly, that doesn't matter. Second, a flock of 15+ cites in a single footnote, and it's not clear what proposition they're standing for. Normally one or two should do. If you require 15 cites to prove one point it's probably synthesis. Can we get to the bottom of it and say something in a succinct way about the speech putting him on the national map, without taking up 1/4 of the footnote section? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My god! excessive, ya think? It needs to be trimmed with a meat cleaver. Especially, the bit about PBS, reruns of shows, and starting off with "Although 3 networks did not carry it". The length and detail actually destroy context in this case. Oh, and the democratic "rising star"? Ugh. Digital^Ninja 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting results

I just saw that someone actually took a straw poll and there are currently 19 supports for African American and 2 supports for Other. WP:consensus would support what an obvious consensus of editors supports. I don't know why there is any more discussion on the issue. Personally, I favored use of the term bi-racial but I am not involved in this article. (I am a pro-life Catholic who voted for McCain)NancyHeise ^talk 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the straw poll asked about the most controversial aspect of the inclusion (in the lead) instead of the one most likely to create an acceptable, compromise solution, like ones suggested above?LedRush (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but part of the reason why this keeps being brought up is because it is a high profile page, that has new viewers all of the time. They may not be aware of the previous discussions, and since consensus can change, it is perhaps always a good question to ask.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the straw poll went up a matter of hours ago. Wikipedia moves fast, but not that fast.--Tznkai (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll is not accurate IMO, as said above it focused on the most controversial content. It was written to where without a doubt a large number of people were going to pick African American. Nearly everyone treated it as if the question was should African American be replaced with black, bi-racial, etc.? The proposal suggested no such thing. I've tried my hardest to understand why the lead sentence cannot be more neutral, and honestly have not seen the first valid reason a combination could not be used. This isn't working people, are all of you willing to participate in the same discussion several times a week? It isn't fair to all of those that did not even get to participate in the discussion. Consensus can change and questions regarding this should not be closed immediately. Pretty much what everyone agrees is that African American should be in the lead. How many people actually have a problem with the lead mentioning biracial at all? Such as "From a bi-racial background he is the first African American President." If not bi-racial then just something, anything more neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus surely can change, that is what the is what the poll is asking. Oh, my god. Why can't you get this through your head? Obama refers to himself as AA, the vast majority of the media refers to him as AA, and, so far, almost all of the editors who have voted in poll have said that they think it should refer to him as AA. I am assuming bad faith here, but I would be willing to lay good money that if the straw poll was going your way, you would be trumpeting the consensus that has been achieved. You proposed that the article mention that Obama is bi-racial, and editors have (for the most part) overwhelmingly rejected your proposal. Why won't you just drop it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, you cried for a discussion and now that it happened it's "not accurate"? What more do you want man? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, the straw poll asked for the most controversial aspect of a change in a way not likely to produce good discussion.LedRush (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As evidence of what Obama refers to himself as, I offer you his profile on his website. He twice refers to himself as "African American", never as "bi-racial", never as "black", and never as "multi-racial". Do you not think that he is qualified to tell what his own ethnicity is? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yet again ignoring what others say and attacking a strawman. No one here is saying he isn't african american or that the article shouldn't refer to him that way. NO ONE. Please try and participate honestly and constructively in conversations. If you're really busy with your college work, take a break from wikipedia and come back when you're relaxed and more willing to calmly and politely engage people. College can be stressful on some people.LedRush (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you [LedRush] tone it down a notch. Your comments are borderline uncivil, but more than that they are not conducive to discussion. Take a tea break or something. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but it is misplaced. I have remained civil despite a strong desire to file a Wikiquette alert against two different editors here. Just because your ideas seem to be in the majority doesn't mean you can act rudely and uncivilly, call people names, swear at them, and misrepresent others' ideas. Some people here need to do some soul searching (GRSZ, JDelaney, and, to a lesser extent, Tarc). I have remained polite, and remain so. Wuite honestly, your post coming right after mine asking someone to remain civil, seems uncivil (or at least inappropriate)LedRush (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame that you do not take your own advice, rather than just name-dropping those who hold a different opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny that he only mentioned 3 names if he was name dropping. I realize you are the type to never admit to any wrongdoing, but you have been uncivil throughout this. Landon1980 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that another editor is "the type" of person to do something, in my opinion, comes very close to crossing the line of what constitutes a personal attack. It begs the question "what type is that, exactly?" Please comment on content rather than on contributors. We're here to discuss improving the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you not warned the users that actually crossed the line. I didn't see you warn Tarc for calling me insane, amongst other rude comments of his. What about the admin that said I wasn't capable of finding my nose? Why have you not warned him. There are many far worse civility breeches than those that are being warned for them. That is my point, and that is a double standard. Landon1980 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've searched the page for the word insane and the only result was the statement immediately preceding this. So, that remark must have been refactored or withdrawn. I hope this explains why I didn't comment on it. Personally, I prefer editors to use strikethruthrough to withdraw remarks, since this makes the page easier to understand for later readers, but never mind. I don't see incivility or personal attacks, provided they have been removed, as an ongoing problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure and only warn the user that is "borderline" uncivil, pay no attention to the admin screaming at him in all Caps telling him he can't find his nose in front of his face. There is such a double standard on how things work around here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking sides, but it seems that the question was properly asked and the overwellming consensus was African American. There is no reason to believe that reformating the question will achieve a differant result. I actually don't like the term African American in any situation, because I believe it is a term invented by the politically correct to enslave the speach patterns of the masses. But I digress. I prefer the term black, but I'm not voting, so it doesn't matter, since I am not officially taking sides on this issue.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The question was asked about the lead, not the article. The whole thing was poorly done.LedRush (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and I agree with you about the use of the term, but consensus was reached and is there any reason to believe that the result will be differant if the question is changed?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe there is, based on the conversations we had before the vote. However, based on a conversation below, I think I will be withdrawing my support for any change (even though I think it would make the article better). I am afraid these discussions open the door to worse discussions (though, who knows, maybe the compromise would shut the door). As usual, I am conflicted :)LedRush (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF

• The imho most crucial point has not been responded to by anyone so far. Why are we not following WP:ASF? Everyme 11:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep ignoring this question? Landon1980 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My best guess is that some don't understand that we may use sources which are non-authoritative for a particular piece of information only as primary sources to back up the assertion that this claim has been made, in this case that News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States, but not as secondary sources to back up the claim as fact, i.e. in this case the assertion that Obama is African American. Incidentally, there is no source in the article that could serve as a reliable secondary source for the latter assertion itself. Contrary to these quite simple and straightforward facts, some believe there is No need for modifiers - references do the job adequately and that the "apparent consensus" was about adhering to WP:ASF vs. ignoring that part of our core content policies -- which it was not, it was about which term to use. Not to mention that local consensus cannot possibly override any of the core content policies. RfC anybody? Everyme 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support an RFC, I'm not happy with 18 page watchers forming their own consensus. Wider community input is needed on this. Too many policies are being ignored here to not look for a solution somewhere. A lot of these people (I'll not mention names) have made it known they are die-hard Obamites, and they worry too much about what Obama would want. Correct me if I'm wrong but are BLP's usually centered around the living person's wishes? The truth is far, far, far more than 18 people have complained about the current state of the sentence in question. Even in the past week way more than 18 people, those of you that do not think this is true look for yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you guys saying that Obama is not African American or that we shouldn't describe him as such? You could never "prove" anyone's race because race is a fuzzy description, not made completely on biological attributes and there is no way to make a classification system that is even close to 100% accurate (and why would you want to?) If the movement to include some mention of Obama being by racial will also include any attempts to remove reference to him being African American, I am getting off that train fast. I support inclusions of his bi-racial (or other term) ancestry because it is true and because it can end these discussions. If the latter part isn't true, and the term is being used as an excuse to open the door wider to this type of discussion, I will strongly agree with the other editors to keep the article as is.

If I have misrepresented your views above, just ignore everything I said.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We should take great care to follow our core content policies is all I'm saying. I could agree to including an overdue mention of his mixed heritage in the same sentence in the lead. But even more than that, I wonder why we cannot, as a start, amend the current formulation of the African American bit so as to avoid asserting non-authoritative opinions as facts. Either that, or I'd ask people who prefer the current assertion that Obama is African American to produce a source that can actually serve as an authoritative, reliable secondary source for that particular claim, which all the news media in the world can not. They can only serve as primary sources for the assertion that they have called him African American. Imho, and looking at the sources currently in the article, both amendments should be made. Seriously, what speaks against something along the lines of:

News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

? How is that less accurate than the current assertion? How does it reflect all the available sources less accurately than the current wording? How does it defy current consensus to cite the term "African American"? Everyme 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet. Race is an unscientific and fuzzy idea. No one conducts tests to prove anyone in african-american, so we could never get a reliable source.LedRush (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is definitely widely being refered to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President. That bit is uncontested fact, and we should formulate it accordingly. Everyme 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that part of your argument. I am asking "what if we accept that argument?" Couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet? No one conducts tests to prove anyone's race, so we could never get a reliable source. Wouldn't that mean that we could never refer to someone's race except through your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that (but it makes for a neat strawman). In Obama's case, the fact that he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President is the far more noteworthy aspect. Supplementing this with a simple and factually undisputable statement that he is of mixed racial heritage, should be the preferred course of action. Everyme 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think I am making a strawman. That is not my intent. However, I would like you to answer my question: If we accept your argument, under what circumstances would we be able to refer to someone's race not using your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered it before you even posted it: Wherever there is an authoritative source that can actually serve as a secondary source for that particular claim. Now, please return the favour and explain how my wording is less accurate than the current one. And how does it defy any consensus on this talk page? Everyme 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So your answer is "never". OK. To answer your questions: 1. it's not less accurate (though it is a little weasel wordy); 2. I don't know...I've not paid attention to that argument because: a) I'm not interested in it; and b) I doubt it has any chance of being adopted. I hope that helps.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my answer is wrong and therefore irrelevant. You are the one says there can never be a reliable secondary source for a claim like that, but you are entirely mistaken. Everyme 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to this so late. I did actually note earlier that you'd made the point about WP:ASF applying to this case; unfortunately the only immediate reply to my post was a comment that "sources describe Obama..." would violate WP:WEASEL. Such is life. Given the weight of sources, I think a better proposal than those made above might be:

News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

...with a footnote providing a few representative examples from prominent sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Halleluja. Thank you, I fully agree. Everyme 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Still a bit weaselly. =) There is no doubt that he is AA, so why qualify it? It isn't just news media, but primary sources, academia, etc. etc. --guyzero | talk 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's incomplete and a little misleading. The truth is that nearly everybody in the US considers Obama African American. It is more than "widely" and it is not just news media. Inasmuch as race is a social construct (based on certain biological and ancestral factors, for which Obama qualifies) that is the same as saying that he is African-American. It would be a mess, and frankly, quite POV, to edit all of the articles about light-skinned and mixed race blacks (and while we're at it, Latinos and Native Americans) to say that they are widely considered to be part of their race. While we're at it, there are big debates about who is Jewish. I think a lot of people who self-identify as Jewish would be rather upset to be told that they are merely "widely considered" to be Jewish. This is just not a good way to treat race. If a group of people wants to stand on a soapbox and object to a racial classification, that is fine, but that kind of small minority position does not deserve a mention in instances where that classification occurs. Finally, semantically, the sentence seems to imply some support for a fringe theory - that Obama is in fact AA but he is not universally considered the first. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look you both, we're talking about this and everybody is talking about this because he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President. We might not even be talking about including this in the lead if it weren't for the media referring to him as such. That's why it does indeed need to be qualified. You do apparently not understand the difference, but take my word and the word of our policy that the distinction exists and it is non-trivial. Everyme 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the media, by his party, by the GOP, by his own campaign, by himself................................. BUT not by WP?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused why you don't apply ASF to determine that he is widely referred to as African American because he IS African American? --guyzero | talk 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and Guyzero...he is African American and the language implies something unintended (that he's AA but not universally regarded as the first.)

Also, where will this proposed language go. If in the lead, I disagree strongly. If in the body, I'm more "meh" on the subject.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is, (seeing at least one editor being or having strong European roots) that what is normal for US here and non-offensive is seen as a somehow racist view at least in some major countries over there. I respect this but must also reject it as it is not an European issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying all non-Americans should be banned from this article and talk page indefinitely. I.e., unless they are in line with a "typical American viewpoint," whatever that may mean. Ok, message received. Everyme 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And a side note: Even African Americans accepted him as such after giving him (initially) a hard time" not being black enough in the primaries. Forgot about that?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article has many flaws, suggestions for improvement

Removed discussion by indef blocked disruptive sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please don't remove. An IP called it vandalism but it is clearly constructive. This is a featured article but it is not a good article. It has many flaws. It is hard to write because some people love him and want to make him sound like Jesus and others hate him and want to make him look like Hitler. Some key details are omitted and some not so important points are included. The political positions section should reflect his positions before becoming President. If there is disagreement, say so. If there is some change in positions, having only the new position would make Wikipedia a newspaper or possibly an Obama newsletter. This isn't right. There needs to be agreement now (not when there is a fight) about the length of the article. We can look at Bush or Clinton to see how long the Presidency part takes and then decide if we want a longer than normal article or we are going to cut it. If we cut stuff, then we have to be prepared to do major cutting. Are we prepared to do this? We should also keep an eye on other recent presidents and make sure that we don't treat articles differently. The excuse that problems in other articles don't justify doing the same thing shouldn't apply because presidential articles are edited a lot. Article length Support a longer than normal article. Support ImNotObama (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Have a long article but be prepared to do major cutting when his presidency section expands as he is president. Support ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Cut and create sub-articles. Support It is normal wikipedia practice to create sub-articles when the main article gets too long. I see no reason to change that practice in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Political Positions Keep much of what we have. Expand as needed. If there is a change, mention it. SupportImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Have only his current political positions. It will be somewhat like news but so what. Oppose ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ImNotObama (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Comment Straw polls are used only when consensus is not clear after a lengthy discussion. Voting first, before discussion, is generally frowned on. J.delanoygabsadds 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC) And useless, as these "proposals" are nothing different than is already being done. Grsz11 →Review! 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I agree - this is not going to go anywhere. The options to vote on are not real choices. Further it is not good to start a discussion by accusing people of editing this article simply out of support or opposition to the person. Any discussion premised on that is not very useful. I suggest we close/archive this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Kenya Section

Today I decided to be bold and add a valuable yet overlooked event in Obama's life. The trip he took to Kenya in 2006 to campaign on behalf of his cousin in "his" Presidential bid. I worded it as follows.

In August 2006 Obama travelled to to his fathers homeland in Kenya to campaign for his cousin Raila Odinga. Early that year Obama dispatched his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya to coordinate his visit. Upon arrival Obama and Odinga traveled together throughout Kenya and Obama spoke on behalf of Odinga at numerous rallies, declaring that "Kenyans are now yearning for change".

It contains two references, one from the Washington Times and one from the BBC. It has been deleted with WP:UNDUE cited as the reason. This implies the wording of the section is unbalanced. I would like input and suggestions as to what exactly is unbalanced in the above paragraph and what can be done to rectify it.

Surely this event is notable. It certainly has many high end sources like the ones included referencing it. I think it adds some flesh to Obama's foreign policy credentials, something he was attacked on by Sarah Palin during the Presidential campaign. Glen Twenty (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In a summary style biography article, new content needs to be weighed carefully to ensure it carries sufficient weight to belong in the main article, not one of the sub-articles. In this case, I'm not sure it does. Thank you, by the way, for bringing this up here, instead of edit-warring to insert it. I'm actually a little on the fence about it, and would like to see other people comment on whether this trip abroad merits mention in the main article. --GoodDamon 05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight may be partly the nature of the main source: a highly slanted commentary - not a news story - from a POV source, in the heat of our Presidential election without any counterbalance. I would agree with GoodDamon that this is more properly placed in a sub article if anywhere. The coverage cited is not widespread and not at all clear that this is notable in his life, for placement in his biography. Also there is some question about whether Odinga is actually Obama's cousin, despite the BBC's citing Odinga. Tvoz/talk 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (well written) paragraph is undue weight for this main biography. A sub-article would seem like a better place: but which sub-article? A lot of suggestions nowadays say generically "put it in the campaign article". That doesn't seem relevant for this (nor for that matter, do most topics now that the campaign is over). I'm starting to think that some other sort of sub-articles might be appropriate to focus on other aspects of the bio subject's life other than the campaign or senate career. Not sure how that might be divided or titled though. LotLE×talk 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this a trip in his official capacity as U.S. Senator? Perhaps the info should be in United States Senate career of Barack Obama.--Appraiser (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that the trip wasn't for any of these reasons. He just wanted to be able to see some lions and tigers, and was advised that there was only one place he could go to see them. True story [4] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new rule

Few would disagree that there is much disagreement with this article.

I propose that all news must be 3 months ago (we can make it 1 month if people want it) before it can be in the article. The only exception would be extreme news, such as a heart attack or divorce or that he was sworn in on January 20th.

This way, we can discuss what is news and what is history.

People who want the latest on President-elect Obama can read CNN.com.

This will also reduce in-fighting.

Comments? Wikiangel1 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you suggest we wait until early February before calling him President-elect and mentioning the election results. Well I disagree. The flaw of paper encyclopedia's is they get out of date so quickly and we would be shooting ourselves int he foot to follow this in any article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's also the problem with Wikipedia; every up-to-the-minute update gets posted and articles become a random collection of facts and events. There's no oversight over what is "encyclopedic". Chuthya (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea is not all that bad and I've thought about similar rules in the past, e.g. as regards current news events, some of which get three or more entire articles in the first few hours. But I agree with SqueakBox that no such rule could ever be enforced. The spirit of the wiki is to keep it rapidly updated, however much sense it makes in some cases (live scores for sports matches etcpp). Everyme 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that. Some news might be clearly "sticking" forever, others don't. Therefore we have to evaluate new developments on a base by base occasion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice about this sort of thing already exists at WP:RECENT, which is frequently invoked by regular editors trying to keep tabs on such transient stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right -we don't need an arbitrary new rule. We need to use common sense and some judgment, and discussion with other editors. Tvoz/talk 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the opposite, but just in the form of something to keep in mind, not a rule. Namely, if it happened more than three months ago chances are it does not need to be changed. This is already a featured article, and unless something new has come to light about a past event, it is probably described pretty well as it is. As a general rule, possibly 90% of all proposed edits to all featured articles are good faith bad ideas - simple mistakes, poor wording, undue weight, trivia, matters that have already achieved consensus, etc. Before jumping in and thinking "this is a problem, I must fix it at once" it's helpful to take a moment to ask yourself why the article is worded the way it is, and whether other editors have already thought it through. Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not terribly optimistic that it'll happen. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what most editors here are saying. Wikipedia is not news. That principle is established, and we can use it to guide our discussions. Of course, the original poster may not have known about this particular principle, and I think that as good faith suggestions go, this is far from the worst I've seen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has rules that other articles don't, like the 1Rev/Revert rule. I think several people's comments are good. Having a 3 month rule might not be exactly what we need but having the 1 month rule (proposed, too) keeps news out but keeps the article encyclopedia.

I think the "after 3 months, nothing can be changed" is not a good idea because I see a lot of sections that could be improved with grammatical changes, tweaks in information, some more important information replacing the less important stuff.

The problem with WP:NOT#NEWS is that it can create unnecessary tension and conflict. Editor A say "Obama did this". Editor B says "WP:NOT NEWS", which can be in a hostile tone and a start of confrontation. If we have an informal agreement that things need to be a month old, then we get rid of the hot news gossip and the accompanying disagreements on whether it's notable.

In short, I support a 1 month requirement to assess notability except in extreme unusual news. After one month, we'll know if something is notable. ImNotObama (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't set a rule that isn't binding or simply said, even so it would be nice in general if people would follow the "not news" policy, there are plenty who just won't. Unfortunately a section with good intention that won't change anything.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A simple approach would be to restrict "news" on bios to what could be called "life-changing events". I say on bios because you can't have such a rule for fluid articles like a sports season, for example. However, such a rule is not only unenforceable, it also violates the "everyone can edit" policy. The restrictions on this particular article are appropriate. Trying to add more rules would just accelerate edit warring, which would not benefit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox needs changing

Michelle Obama is listed as spouse in the article infobox. John McCain's article list Cindy Hensley, not Cindy McCain, in that infobox.

I propose changing it to Michelle Robinson.

If there is strong opposition, then those people should change it to Cindy McCain. I can live with that.

We need to treat people fairly and do things the same way. ImNotObama (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the normal rule on spouse names in infoboxes? Is the default the maiden name, or the name they are most commonly known by, or something else? We should follow the rule, whatever it is. If you feel that the McCain article does not follow the rule you can take that up over there. Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's listed as "Laura Bush" in the George W. Bush article. Maybe the McCain article is the outlier here? --Aeon17x (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure know the "rule" in a previous discussion was to include their maiden name in their spouses article's info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the 20th century Presidents there's a total mix, with some displaying maiden names, some married names as best known and some displaying the Forename Maiden-name Married-name format even if they didn't actually use that. If there's a single default it's not actually being followed. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course and that falls under wp:other stuff exists what I already mentioned in another thread. Taking a look at the recent election (and that's what we should focus on) it shows, that we did not go with "other crap exists". So what's your point? I wasn't talking about a long-term default.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is a rejoinder used too often (especially when calling for consistency with other stuff). I am a great believer in the consistent presentation of information and an opponent of recentism. From an encyclopedic point of view the obvious comparison is with the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc... not with the unsuccessful candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I think consistency in articles is a plus but also not the only way to go. I'm comparing (and I said this before) the recent main articles about this years election and that would be, again, John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. So I'm referring to the recent time and history, meaning this year, this election. If you think it was done wrong you're a little bit late to bring this up. Sid you read my last comment called "hold your breath" at [5] here on the same page you're posting? If not you might want to do this before replying further.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough when a talkpage is used so heavily that it gets about 500 new comments a day it's hard to keep track of every variable thread. But having looked at it now (for all that it says) the template details just say:

Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (1950-present) for current spouse and Name (1970-1999) for former spouse(s). Separate entries with a line break (br/).

So it doesn't help us at all here, although the example shows "Melinda Gates" not "Melinda French" (or even "Melinda French Gates").

I completely reject the idea that the main valid comparisons are with other candidates in this election. That is typical recentism. There doesn't seem to be a clear guidance on this at all so making changes on the basis of dubious consistency is flawed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

References not needed in lead (and should be moved occasionally at bottom of page)

Somehow we accumulated an absurd number of references in the lead, where WP:MOS indicates that NONE should be used, except in exception circumstances (e.g. for genuinely disputed facts). Much of this accreted around the "is African American" matter that has had so many books written about it on this talk page. But also some other stuff like the fact he is President-elect.

All of those non-contentious facts should be (and are) cited with excellent detail in the article body. We are not inventing any of them or engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Stylistically, however, the lead should be clean, and defer to the body for such citation.

I've clipped out the lead citations, and stick them below. If anything is genuinely uncited in the body that needs to be (and that was in the lead), we can and should use the relevant links at appropriate locations in the body text. LotLE×talk 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• FACTBOX: Barack Obama, Democratic President-elect (Reuters, November 5, 2008); World leaders hail Obama triumph (BBC News, November 5, 2008); Obama's victory caps struggles of previous generations (CNN, November 5, 2008)
• The President-elect can be yielded on election day, but the official Electoral College vote is not until early December."Backgrounder: U.S. presidential elections". Xinhua News Agency. November 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
• "Barack Obama wins presidential election". CNN. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
• "Obama: 'This is your victory'". CNN. 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Hunt, Terence (2008-11-08). "Obama turns to building a presidency". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Johnson, Alex (2008-11-05). "Barack Obama elected 44th president". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Nagourney, Adam (2008-11-04). "Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• McAuliff, Michael (2008-11-05). "Barack Obama is our first black President after an inspirational race". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2008-11-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Barack Obama becomes first black US president". The Daily Telegraph. 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• 55% of White Americans classify Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black. ("Williams/Zogby Poll: Americans' Attitudes Changing Towards Multiracial Candidates". BBSNews.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2007-09-23.) Obama describes himself as "black" or "African American", using both terms interchangeably ("Transcript excerpt: Senator Barack Obama on Sixty Minutes". CBS News. 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2008-11-10.)
• Butterfield, Fox (1990). "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review'". NY Times. Retrieved November 6, 2008.

presidential codename

according to BBC. should these be included, or should we create a new article about presidential codename?
[6]
w_tanoto (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a new section about this at President of the United States?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is kind of pointless trivia to have any discussion of presidential codenames at all, honestly, even though it has been in the news. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, it could fit in the existing "Secret Service" section in President of the United States.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best option is to add it to Secret Service. I know I started this topic, but it should not be me who add it, as I am unfamiliar with US topic. I am Indonesian living in UK, and have limited American knowledge. w_tanoto (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What next - do we follow the media if the search for news forces them to talk about the candidates' socks? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more interested in presidential cuff-links. --GoodDamon 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, that's not too far off the mark. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article makes clear that this information being public isn't really a big issue, given that the Secret Service use encrypted communications. If the source says it's not all that big a deal, I am tempted to agree. Perhaps some day multiple sources will decide that codenames are important and interesting enough write at length on the subject, and then we'll be able to write a good verifiable article on it, but I don't think that time has come yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: The candidates' socks?? I must say, if either Obama or McCain has been running around Wikipedia using multiple accounts to edit disruptively, I would think that would be quite major news! If you have evidence, I suggest you call the Associated Press right aw---

Oh. That type of socks. Nevermind. :p --Jaysweet (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note... I read the BBC article, and I agree it's not nearly notable enough to appear here. Possibly it might be interesting under Secret Service, but care would have to be taken that it wasn't just a bit of fun trivia. I haven't read that article so I don't know where it might fit in, but maybe... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It might also go in Presidency of Barack Obama.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as a notable fact for an article about his presidency. --GoodDamon 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service code names are quite notable, and are interesting. Maybe it's a Washington wonky thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article at Secret Service codename. Deor (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've just added a short "use of codenames" section here: [7] .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you w_tanoto (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did it for WP but of course only after you pointed it out (and also took all the postings above in consideration).  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming time

Now that the election is over, the section on the Presidential campaign is looking too long again. I believe that we should try to get it down to about half its current length, or at the least about 2/3 the length. If nothing else, I think expansion of his actions as President-elect (and soon, as President) will inevitably grow much more material. Keeping the overall length roughly constant is desirable. We're within WP:LENGTH recommendations now, but only because of some fairly merciless use of scissors over the last months. We need to keep at that. LotLE×talk 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You go girl, ahm, I mean guy of course. You're right, it's time to start shortening. Just don't go over the top and (as you already did), keep on doing it step by step for easy following.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets get the Infobox name right

Earlier discussions are at Infobox format and Talk:Barack_Obama#Full_name_in_infobox.

Identity has value. Its important not only to me, but almost everyone that has put together this Wikipedia. Having and keeping a birth name is sometimes done only for legal purposes, such as for wills and estates, and used in swearing in (again a legal formality), but a common name is something else, its something we live and breath with every day. Obama may not care one iota which name we use in the template above his image, and it doesn't bother me much. But, not following our style guideline does bother me. Think about it... are we following reliable sources? How often do reliable sources use Barack Hussein Obama II in their titles? We worry about giving biracial too much weight, but now disregard weight completely with his names (juxtaposed with his image)? And what about future presidents? Do we again go against the reliable sources and not use their notable identities under this recent push for a troublesome non-compliant full name convention? How many president articles have been through the rigor of a Featured Article process? Lets get this right and comply with guidelines at Manual_of_Style#Identity that many hardworking fellow editors put together with these exact same considerations in mind. Modocc (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

note: I had not intended on a straw poll, and the first responses to this are a jumbled mess, with agreed meaning either for full names or against. Any help cleaning it up or putting together a proper poll would be appreciated. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Hussein Obama II is his name, and that should be in the infobox. Everyme 11:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Facts are facts. To leave the full name out of the infobox would demonstrate a bias. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Following Manual_of_Style#Identity with the precedence set by Template:Infobox_Person would not be bias. All biographies should conform. If there is any bias here, its the favoring of full names for only US Presidents. Modocc (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. It needs to be in line with MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed . Almost all similar articles use the full name and should be no different here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean only US Presidents? What other leaders should not conform with guideline precedence and set new precedence? Modocc (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Madocc, I'll say this once: Cut out the baiting, now. Everyme 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I was hoping for some clarity on your position so perhaps we can change guidelines to reflect whatever consensus might be reached.[striking what came across wrong, as I didn't mean to fray any nerves here] Modocc (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls don't like it when you bait them. That's supposed to be their shtick. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Consistency Barack Obama There seems to be a dispute over the use of full names in the infoboxes. I remain unconvinced that using the full name follows the manual of style. However, the last time I checked, the President's infoboxes are all that way. So by that approach, Obama's should be also. His political enemies tried to make a thing out of his middle name. That tactic didn't work (nor did trying to rhyme "Obama" with "Osama"), and there's nothing wrong with his middle name. So if the other Presidents' middle names stay, so should this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC) As a more observant reader pointed out, the template has a spot for Birth Name, i.e. full name. Restating that at the top of a bio infobox is a redundancy, except where commonly used (William Jennings Bryan, for example). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has even come close to showing that there is adequate precedence for them; what has been shown here on talk are only US presidents and those articles have been inconsistent over time and have not been Featured and fall under Otherstuffexists. Also, why stop with US presidents, supreme court justices are important too and governors such as Sara Palen... and I could go on, but not here. The reason this goes down a slippery slope is that the presidential full names are being given undue weight. Modocc (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article title is the common name, and the lead carries the full name. Toss a coin as to which one belongs in the infobox. Here's a radical idea: Neither one. The subject is already stated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The person infobox set precedence here, unless reliable sources for presidents differ radically from other biographical subjects. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• consistency I prefer the "most commonly used name" for the info box, but vote for consistency (whatever that is) above all.LedRush (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• commonly used name, of course. :-) Its really not a matter if there is a preference either, for I like his full name,since Barack Hussein Obama II is going to be our best president ever! That said, presenting encyclopedic information that reflects published reliable sources does matter. Full names are not used in titles of most secondary sources. We should check the Britannica, Old World and other encyclopedias too. We should have common ground here, and we can change any or all of the presidential names to reflect it. Modocc (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

*Barack Hussein Obama II. Every other Wikipedia biography about a president uses the president's full name. Why are we making an exception? This invites accusations of favoritism from one side, and racism from another. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 300wackerdrive was confirmed as a socket puppet of banned user BryanFromPalatine. Modocc (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The MoS guidelines demand consistencytoo, but over a broader range of people. Thus, this discussion is really about what all presidential info names should be. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what should it be? If the norm for names is the most common name, i.e. the name of the article, then the U.S. Presidents should be changed to the names of the articles, and it wouldn't take but a few minutes to do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aye! All should be changed to their article name, unless reliable sources differ. Modocc (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again (and I repeat myself in part), there was a discussion about this going on [it was around June if I remember right] and the result/consensus was to keep the common name in the info box as the full name is already (and consistently) given in the lead. About a week ago, someone came up with the Idea to include the birth name in the info box since there is a spot exactly for this (unless it was erased as it was in some I checked). IMO I was hoping it stays and it did for a while till after the election when surprisingly this issue was brought up again. I'm really wondering why now, since it wasn't an issue for month and I'm trying to figure out the actual intention of going thru this again. Take a look at the long-term history of McCain and Hillary Clinton and you'll find out that the common name was used before this silly discussion emerged.

Anyway, this "discussion" doesn't belong here but at a "general" place since it isn't or shouldn't be about Obama. Consensus needs to be reached but not here because whatever comes out (or not) can be dismissed for other BLP's as "other crap exists".

One last thing: Another way to dismiss such "consensus" here can be "wp:ignore all rules".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Few people visit style pages (a few per day). So what do we do, start a RfC there? I am also concerned about only editors that watchlist the affected articles will show up in droves, and their views may not reflect the wider community. Modocc (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there (or maybe on the page which I don't remember; Some BLP page about what to include in the BLP-template). And a "mass-canvassing" would be approbate and within WP-policies to attract more editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Happyme22 suggested in this discussion that we use the office holder template. I'm OK with any of these places, but have never done mass-canvassing and I haven't edited much, just visiting mostly, off and on for about a year, with a slow modem connection to boot and I still feel newbie-ish much of the time. Modocc (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to start the discussion anew, but I just can't afford the time (and it would take a long time) to canvass. My dialup is just too slow, it takes forever to get anything done here as it is (its gotten better cause my connection used to fail often). Hence, someone else will have to do the honors. Modocc (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferably someone will volunteer that has the skills, experience and speed to do it well, so we have something done that will help prevent future discussions like this one. Modocc (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's the page it should be discussed and decided. And don't worry about "mass canvassing". That is the least of our problem ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is "just" a guideline, and non-binding, if we can establish some consensus there my hope is that most editors will obey it (no matter of the outcome) and "crush" any further disrupting discussion about it in the future.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Little correction: The correct page is Template:Infobox Person where these info boxes come from.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit. )::-) But, I must take a wikibreak for awhile now, but I will be back later, either late tonight or midday tomorrow. I'll either start a discussion then or join in one if its already started. I enjoyed our discussion. :-) Bye! Modocc (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hold your breath: Under Parameter, name, it states the following: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).".

So there is the page I was looking for all the time and the reason why the names in the info boxes of the participants of this years election where kept with their common name, rather than the now proposed "full birth name" (which still should be included in the box under "birth name"). After finding this I don't see a need for further discussion unless of course some just wants to bend this existing guideline [oh, hold it, it doesn't seem to be a just a guideline if I didn't miss something] or seemly more this policy for whatever reason.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: "don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit." Shit happens all the time but afterwards it only can get better ;) Best wishes, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You're citing a template documentation as if it were policy. I'll revert your edit now, and warn you to defy established consensus like that again, particularly with an inept wikilawyering trick like that. Everyme 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I don't know who you reverted but it certainly wasn't me. Lack of attention?

And as for your insult including your laughable warning [you're already in the "hall of fame" for such behavior]: Keep it for yourself, best in a dark spot and hard to reach. End of discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Lolly, what's the point of having the full name in the infobox twice, when he's not commonly known by his full name? Or are you still trying to make a "thing" of his middle name? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is: Why are you still trying to make a "big thing" out of his middle name? Do you have a personal problem with the Arab middle name? Everyme 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the name Hussein. The general question is: Why does Franklin Delano Roosevelt need to have his full name in two different places in the infobox? It's redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The full name should be at the top. You keep arguing against it, and I still don't recognise any reason why anyone would do so other than a pre-existing sentiment against the Arabic middle name. Everyme 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already an infobox slot for full name. Why do you need it twice in the infobox? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know or care what you are talking about. The full name should be at the very top of the infobox in big bold letters, period. Everyme 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has "Barack Hussein Obama II" at the top and then under "Birth name" it has "Barack Hussein Obama II". That's called redundancy. And since you seem to like redundancy, how about everyplace in the article where it just says "Obama" or "Barack Obama", change it "Barack Hussein Obama II". Just for those who didn't catch it the other 333 times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other presidents they all have their full name at the top of the infobox. So if it's consistency you want, you should either have Obama's full name here or delete the full name from all the other presidents. Obvious, I would have thought. MFlet1 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They didn't all used to, until sometime in the last week, when they were changed hurriedly in order to try to force this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama (most commonly used name) in infobox. Barack Hussein Obama II (full proper name) as first words of lead. Per MOS and it just reads better. LotLE×talk 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense and doesn't violate any wp guideline or policy, yet POV prevents such simple and clear consensus to being applied and the "fight" will go on.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Full name - why hide his identity? w_tanoto (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not hidden and easy to find. Maybe you want to take another look and strike out or rephrase your comment?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is about his name in the infobox, not the main article. Why hide the middle in infobox while other US presidents have their full name displayed? and why should I rephrase my comment? This is the discussion about infobox, which as you can see, hide his middle name (i noted sometimes somebody added his full name, but to be reverted again), unlike the other presidents. He is president elect, and deserve the same treatment of other presidents. Enough said, I voted for his full name. no more comment from me. w_tanoto (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After your repeated, disrupting comment was already answered below I'm hesitating to what is called "feed the trolls" but I'll do it anyway, at least at this occasion.

You're repeating the word "hiding" (and yourself in general) and no matter where the full name shows up (as long as it is easy to find like right in the beginning of the lead) you should come up with a reasonable explanation why it should be in the info box (as not all BLP's, President or not and let me remind you, that Obama is not yet President of the United States of America but President-elect). Unless you come up with a valuable reason your posts fall under disruption as they're not helpful to solve the issue. Now please stop any further disruption unless you find some new development or whatever could be helpfull--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, first, I am not a troll. My vote is based on that Obama is president-elect (soon-to-be president), so I think it should be uniformed as the other US President. THe main article already have the full name, but we are voting for the infobox info, so it can be made the same to the other presidents. I am not disrupting anything, and am just voicing my opinion. If I am disrupting, please just let me know which part. Different people use different word. Mind that I am not native-english speaker, and MAY use some words incorrectly in incorrect topic in incorrect time sometimes. other than that, I will say no more. w_tanoto (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First let me thank you for your honesty about not "...I am not native-english speaker, and... '". I will keep this in mind in possible future conversations.

As for indirectly calling you a troll, I'll take my remark (I made above) back as I also take back the "disrupting" part (even so it is exactly what you're doing (without being aware of it). Being "Disrupting" is in part making the same (unclear) statement over and over just as an opinion not backed up by any wp-policy or guideline. Furthermore let me explain "voting" on WP since there is NO real voting here. "Voting" is nothing more than a measure where wikipedians stand on an issue and more important, how strong their wp-reasons are. With other words: If you state you like this or that it has almost no standing against "opinions" which cite WP-policies/guidelines. WP just doesn't work solely or in major with plain opinions (which is called personal point of view). I'll gotta go now but I didn't meant to disincourage you to contribute. Just keep in mind the view things I just laid out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

no probs. just forget the quarrel we had. I don't see your post as discouragement to contribute. You might also like to check the Userpages if you are curious of who a person is (I always do that). Though my level of English is rather high, I have to admit, sometimes, I just simply forget what to say/what the appropriate word to say (actually it does happens to both my first languages as well). I know this voting things are not the real thing. It just determine the content of wikipedia. anyway, I gotta go now. I need to find tags for my recently written article for the lack of reference, etc. Sorry, getting off-topic here. w_tanoto (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama (most commonly used name) in infobox, Barack Hussein Obama II (full proper name) as first words of lead. There's no 'precedent' for the full name in the infobox other than recent changes to make it so. From the earlier discussion: Having noticed the above remark. I have corrected the problem and FDR and LBJ's middle names are now up in fullEricl (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was consensus for month and I personally stand for this unless someone can come up with some new or better said overlooked stuff that would change everything, not only here but at all BLP's on WP. Till then I'm with you, Ericl, since no one could change my stance with reason. I wouldn't care for either way if somebody could give any WP-policy that demands so, but nobody could bring such, only preferences based in most cases on POW. No, of course I don't wonder about it, but I'm getting very tired of it since this discussion (would have been based on rules and common sense) it would be long over and settled. Wait. Didn't I say that before at some point? Embarrassing, just embarrassing the whole discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps size and length matter!

I'm one of those people who don't care which format is used, provided there is consistency. That being said, it occurs to me that the larger font and bold face lend themselves to the common name, rather than the full name (which might cause wrapping in some cases). If the full name is duplicated later in the infobox, it makes more sense to use the common (and usually shorter) name in the prominent position. Anyway, it should be fairly straightforward to get a consensus on something as trivial as this. To continue the innuendo, how hard can it be? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made that point earlier but this seems not the actual "problem". The problem is, that some "just suddenly" want to change it to their own personal POW. If "those" editors would've been not here I'm sure we would have reached consensus by now (for or against it). My guess is that this senseless "war" will go on for quite some time with plenty of useless (just simple) POW comments/posts which are not in the (good faith) spirit of WP to improve this and other pages (which are directly affected by this). user:Wasted Time R made the right call when he reversed McCain's info box with the remark in his edit summary to wait for "consensus" to build up here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this, but I believe that common name makes more sense at the top of the infobox and birth/full name can stay in the lead sentence and in the "birth name" field of the infobox. Note that for females, the birth name is not the issue but rather the full name is, and the full name is often a concoction of unmarried and married names, and per Scjessey's observation, can become very unwieldy at the top of the infobox. For an example, see Nancy Pelosi, where the full "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi" name wraps in my browser. Worse would be if Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis used the full "Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis", which would wrap in anyone's browser. Or take Virginia Kelley, where "Virginia Dell Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" would be a real mess. If we want to make an exception and use full name at the top for U.S. Presidents, on the grounds of greater formality, I'm okay with that (the presence or absence of "Hussein" doesn't bother me either way). I reverted the full-name-at-top changes to the Hillary and McCain articles because I thought they were being made to prove or disprove a point related to a dispute here, and I don't think those articles should get caught in the middle of an argument that's likely to go on for a few more days ... weeks ... four or eight years.... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WTR. Thank you so much for your input here and you made some good common sense points. Maybe it will effect the discussion or not, but your input was important, at least for me and hopefully I'm not alone with this. Also, I won't change "your pages" as you already saw today because of my respect for you as an editor and because of a penitential edit war (which happened already in part). Let's hope for a consensus that works for most of us wikipedians, (leaving the POV warriors out). Besides that, I don't have strong feelings either regarding this as long there is a solution called "consensus" that could go either way. Thanks again, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly many future woman presidents will be leading our country. And, not to belabor the point, there is no crystal ball telling us how simple or unwieldy their names might be. And the Barack Obama name reads better and avoids redundancy. These are very practical considerations. Many Pointy Fancy Barnstars to the editors pointing these out!:=) In addition, references of any official names must be weighed carefully, since official documents are generally primary source material and any name use should be guided by secondary and tertiary sources. In addition, I don't think there is a one-size fits all here by any means (imagine a famous rap star becoming president or a president becoming a famous rap star!) so exceptions could be made, but let us not forget that these are biographies first and foremost about people's lives in addition to their notable careers. Adhering to a commonly sourced name as prescribed by MoS is as sensible for any large city mayor, as it is for a senator, a celebrated scientist, a president, a Nobel-prize winner or any combination there in. To keep these infoboxes stable, I don't think any additional formal or informal rules are needed, just reasonable agreement on how to best reflect sources. Checking the online Britannica they use Barack Obama in their title like we do, but they don't have a caption with their photo. Interestingly, they use Jr. in their subtitle giving his full name. Also, searching "Barack Hussein Obama II" with Google gets 77,500 hits (some more without those closing brackets). But Google "Barack Obama" we get about 123,000,000 hits! That is an awesome landslide winner for his most common name. Need I say more? Modocc (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add I've been troubled with the notion that presidents' infobox title should conform to only official names, or to just the "most" common names. Sources are sometimes conflicted, such as with Bill Clinton's presidency. I remember when there were strong sentiments with regard to the naming of his library, William Jefferson Clinton. The Britannica's title points out that it is his presidential name. Thus, given the weight of this tertiary source and the usage of the office holder template, it seems more appropriate than his article name. Its an exceptional case for an exceptional president. Each presidency differs of course and preferences do change. If a formal name has significant usage (as with Clinton's library) we should use it, otherwise we use the most common name. Former President Ronald Reagan is perhaps another example, Ronald W. Reagan is slightly more formal and Britannica titles its article with it. But discussion on its usage properly belongs on the Reagan talk page. In the end, I think we have settled the matter for Obama's infobox for now. Modocc (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just use the same info box naming convention for all Presidentila bios. --Tom 15:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you keep reverting to the full name, but the over-whelming number of editors here have supported the short name and consistency, so please stop. Please reread WTR comment, especially the part about using "that common name makes more sense". Common being the short version "Barack Obama". That is the naming convention per infobox instructions applicable to all boxes including presidential boxes. Modocc (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. We were using the birth name. The full name. The name on his birth certificate. We agreed. Barak Hussein Obama II is what was discussed as being the best choice. Sorry. I realize that many find "Hussein" unpalatable. I hope you don't, Modocc. I'm used to it personally. Whether or not the middle name is strange or familiar to us shouldn't be a factor in this decision, and I don't believe it was. We all decided that the birth name was more conservative, and more accurate. The current choice is to use the full, legal birth name. VictorC (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ones you learned to spell his name right we might consider you being right. :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And besides: "We all decided that the birth name was more conservative...". Isn't he called the most liberal Senator by conservatives? You're confusing me. Shouldn't we call him by the most "liberal" name?????? *LOL*--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And still @ Victorc:

I just saw your edit summary: "Wrong. We were using the birth name. The full name. The name on his birth certificate. We agreed. Barak Hussein Obama II is the best choice."

So no, Sir. You don't declare consensus by ignoring the discussion and/or using it for whatever suits your personal opinion. You should know that since you're not new to WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what you all come up with, but please remember that any consensus reached here, is not binding on any of the other pages on the presidents. Please do not disrupt the info boxes of other pages to prove some point on this page. Thank you, I've said my peace. Good day all.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

I lean towards having both article title and infobox with the person's most commonly used name, and the full birth name (when different) at the start of the first paragraph. That seems to be the more used format, eg Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, etc. I feel strongly that all US Presidents should be listed consistent manner. Discussion on consistant listings should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Presidents, not here. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no precident to form a consensus here that is binding other articles. Each article has its own talk page and its own consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Forming of WP:CONSENSUS across articles is a complex thing. Normally it's grassroots and emerges from a pattern of decisions on various articles. Occasionally the goal of consistency (as with a number of MOS issues) means imposing a central editorial decision on all the articles. In any event, consensus would not radiate out from this article. It would either be established in a central place like an MOS or a wikiproject on American politics, and then find its way here...or it would develop organically. Obama is a particularly bad place to start on consensus because there are special associations with his middle name. It's best to make the consensus work for people for whom the middle name is not an issue, and then see whether or not we want this article to go along with that. And then, if there is no universal consensus about Presidential infoboxes (or more broadly, American politicians) we're free to make whichever decision we want in this case. Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why include an image of his signature?

Signature Image

I'm a bit disturbed about having a .JPG of the President-Elect's signature up on the website, listed as creative commons. Isn't that just inviting fraud, when anyone can make up a document with the President's signature on it, just by clicking the first link that comes up after a google search on his name? With great power comes great responsibility... 68.37.255.83 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) November 11, 2008, Tom

This is standard WP practice for all presidents. MFlet1 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are fools born every minute, who will believe anything. We can't be catering to them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. It's a legitimate question by an outsider. Everyme 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Look at all the money I made selling autographed pictures of Obama on... *reads the above* Oh, damn...

But seriously, and here's a perhaps not legitimate question coming from an insider- why exactly is it standard wikipedia practice to include an image of the president's signature as part of his article? What could a reader possibly get from that that would do him or her any good, except access to the subject's bank account? ("So that's what happened to the rest of the campaign funds!") I understand older presidents, and especially folks who signed documents like the declaration, but I guess I'm just fuzzy on how a .jpg of his signature lends any insight into Barack Obama as a person, lawmaker, or tax-paying citizen? L'Aquatique[talk] 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphology? But for that it wouldn't have to be their signatures, could be The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Wouldn't that be nice? Everyme 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Snark, snark. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't kill me for not knowing how to use Wiki, but... Through history, leaders and chieftains had almost a form of clout represented by the weapons they carried. In this day and age, at the very least in America, the signature of the president is that powerful symbol. It can grant someone life, it can take another's away. That signature can sway the lives of (at the very least) three hundred million people for better or worse. It's something that can be looked upon with awe in the manner, "That scribble signed "The Bill of XXXX" into law! What an amazing piece of history." 76.117.46.81 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that now and especially when he becomes President, his signature (or a copy of it) can and will be very easily ascertained (any document he has or will sign into law). Thus the likelihood that having his signature on Wikipedia will lead to fraud is very small. --The Original Editor (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are more safeguards than just his signature when things like that are carried out. The signature is more symbolic than practical. Nar Matteru (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Brick wall

I've created this new section in response to the continued "African American" discussion above, so that I might have something to bang my head against. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, and I hope you enjoy yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as much as you and your troll buddies are enjoying it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

People tampering with the definition of Obama's ethnic identity? That's change I can't believe in. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself ou... oh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to borrow your brick wall. It's definitely beginning to reach the point of tendentiousness and a certain selectivity with facts, policies, and guidelines. --GoodDamon 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean in that the lead completely ignores one of our core policies I agree. How have you all determined African American is more notable than mixed heritage? What exactly are the numbers of reliable sources that mention his mixed heritage in some way? What are the numbers for African American? Landon1980 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that Landon1980 started out with a well-meaning intention. But after this many thousands of words of contentious arguing, apparently intended to simply wear out all the other editors who tire of repeating the same points for the thousandth time, it has crossed into pretty active disruption.

At this point I am starting to wonder if some kind of ANI or other administrative forum (maybe user RfC) would help urge Landon1980 in more productive directions. Perhaps even in the form of a brief topic ban since this is obviously going nowhere.

However right he no doubt feels for pursuing the truth, there is simply not a snowball's chance in hell that the change he wants is going to reach consensus, or even bare majority, and probably not every reach more than a very slim minority position (say 20% of editors agreeing, to be generous).LotLE×talk 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not out for truth, everything I have proposed is verifiable. No one has actually ever responded to any valid points myself and many others have made. Everyone brings up due weight, but the truth is no one knows how many reliable sources are out there for African American, and how many there are for verifying his mixed heritage. As I said before, a lot more than 18 regulars have had the same concerns. Lets try asking this question on the Mccain talk page and see what kind of response we get. It is clear that most of these people are biased about this. I feel that is wrong, I honestly think the article should be neutral. I'm not the only person discussing this. You are going to suggest I am banned from an article I have never edited the mainspace on? Just kindly inform me of whatever action you take. The same people pool against editors like myself in a handful at a time and call it consensus. I really feel like if we could get a wider community response consensus would be different. Landon1980 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no editor has ever written "no on responded to my valid points" in response to a long thread who wasn't far too wrapped up in WP:TRUTH. I know you started this out with good faith, but you really are simply disrupting this talk page now. Give it a breather. Obama will still be just as much or little "bi-racial" in two weeks, and the frustration and animosity you've instilled in most others here will at least have dissipated.... and frankly, if readers need to read two sentences past the lead to discover the urgent WP:TRUTH you are trying to inform them of, no great harm will be done. Seriously: you have better things to do with yourself. LotLE×talk 06:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They built straw men, there is a difference. Due weight is just an excuse to keep it out of the lead. Like I said though, if you feel I'm that disruptive take it up at the appropriate venue. Just let me know when and where, have a good evening. Landon1980 (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, with all due respect, you're not seeing the consensus that exists here and that's leading others (and yourself) to get very frustrated. You've claimed due weight isn't applicable, and said no one has responded to your valid points when this page is literally covered in discussion over the issue. If you look at your edits from the last few days, you have made almost 200 edits solely on this topic. You comment here and also on the talk page of anyone you feel has wronged you. I understand you're upset at some of the treatment you've received here, but you should understand that sometimes the best way to handle these things is just to let them slide. If someone calls you a troll, being combative to the point of disruption isn't really the way to show them you're a productive editor. I know you came here in good faith, but as I advised you on your talk page days ago (and you blanked and ignored), it might be best to take a step back and edit some other page for a while just to let things calm down. I offer this advice in good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Brick Wall," how come no mention - either in the article itself or even here - of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all the controversy surrounding Mr. Obama's twenty-year membership in the Rev. Wright's flock and his two-decades-long exposure to pastoral messages that could only be construed as being charged with racial hatred? Mr. Obama's efforts to scrape the Rev. Wright off his shoes during the election campaign are certainly detailed on the Wikipedia site for that individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.157.117 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rush, the election's over. Live with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

I just found 4,490,000 Google hits for "Barak" , and 119 million for "Barack". The spelling -ack and the pronunciation -ock (American English) are not compatible. Two simple questions: 1) Does Obama object if people pronounce "Barack" to rhyme with "sack, back" etc.? 2) Does Obama object if people write it as "Barak"? Maybe somebody knows, maybe not...Jakob37 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted somewhere in this mega-megillah, he himself pronounces it brrAHK ohBAHmuh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not my question; as I noted (before it was archived somewhere), it is not uncommon for people to tolerate, and then even imitate other people's mispronunciation of their name, in order not to "make waves".Jakob37 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Public figures can't afford to make a thing out of how their names are pronounced or spelled. Trying to manage the behavior of others is not the way to increase record sales - or votes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If we look at the Arabic source, and the way his father (presumably) chose to spell it, I suspect it was originally "Bah-rack", but it seems the general public changed it into "Buh-rock", and the practical-minded politician followed suit.Jakob37 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, it's the way American English tends to slur things. He himself says "BrrAHK", the way most any American would. Consider other foreign-sounding names: The proper way to say "Iran" and "Iraq" is roughly "ear-ahn" and "ear-ahk". But how often have you heard Americans say "eye-ran" and "eye-rack"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"is a Christian"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Totoro33 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC) It's rather loaded to claim in the article that Obama "is a Christian"... he is NOT by many people's standards. It can simply be changed to, "claims to be Christian".

Um, no. Please read this, this, and this. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"References" not cited in article

The References section in this article had been used for full citations for books (listed in alphabetical order by author name, then by date published) cited by shortened footnotes in the Notes section:

• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power. Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-085820-6.
• Obama, Barack (2004). Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Times Books. ISBN 1-4000-8277-3.
• Obama, Barack (2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 0-307-23769-9.

On 5 November 2008, Franz weber added:

• 10:26, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: References added (from Worldcat open access))
• 10:30, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: more references added)
• 10:32, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: one more reference added)
• 12:16, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: The President's strategic concept, as developed in "Foreign Affairs" article added)

13 additional "references" to the References section that are not cited by shortened footnotes in the Notes section:

• Obama, Barack (1998) Public policy in the 21st century. Loyola University Chicago. Center for Instructional Design.; VHS Video
• Obama, Barack (2005) EBONY'S 60th Anniversary - The Political Movement In Black America. Chicago, Johnson Pub. Co., etc., Ebony. 61, no. 1, (2005): 116
• Obama, Barack (2005) Bound to the Word - Guardians of truth and knowledge, librarians must be thanked for their role as champions of privacy, literacy, independent thinking, and, most of all, reading. American libraries. 36, no. 7, (2005): 48, Chicago, American Library Association.
• Obama, Barack (2006) It takes a nation : how strangers became family in the wake of Hurricane Katrina : the story of MoveOn.org Civic Action's HurricaneHousing.org by Laura Dawn; Barack Obama; San Rafael, CA : Earth Aware, ISBN: 1932771867 9781932771862
• Obama, Barack (2006) Lobbying reform : congressional ethics in the wake of scandal : does the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act provide for sufficient reforms? by Trent Lott; Barack Obama; Congressional Digest Corporation.; et al, Bethesda, MD : Congressional Digest Corp., OCLC: 84912539
• Obama, Barack (2007) Barack Obama in his own words Ed. Lisa Rogak, New York: Carroll & Graf, 2007. ISBN: 9780786720576 0786720573
• Obama, Barack (2008, contr.) in Health care by David M Haugen; Detroit : Greenhaven Press/Gale; ISBN: 9780737740066; 073774006X; 9780737740073; 0737740078
• Obama, Barack (2008) Affordable Health Care for All Americans: The Obama-Biden Plan 13. Affordable Health Care for All Americans: The Obama-Biden Plan JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 300, no. 16, (2008): 1927, Chicago : American Medical Association, 1960-
• Obama, Barack (2008) An American story : the speeches of Barack Obama : a primer by Barack Obama and David Olive; Toronto: ECW Press, ISBN: 9781550228649; 1550228641
• Obama, Barack (2008) Change we can believe in : Barack Obama's plan to renew America's promise, New York : Three Rivers Press, ISBN: 9780307460455 : 0307460452 : 9780739383223 0739383221
• Obama, Barack (2008) Barack Obama's speech on race : "A more perfect union." BN Publishing, ISBN: 9650060448 9789650060442
• Obama, Barack (2008) An analysis of the Obama health care proposal by John Holahan; Linda Blumberg; Barack Obama; Health Policy Center (Urban Institute, Washington), D.C. : Urban Institute Health Policy Center, OCLC: 262633852
• Obama, Barack (2008) Renewing American leadership Foreign Affairs, New York/N.Y.(0015-7120), 86 (Juli-August 2007) 4 S. 2-16 Ill.

I have removed from the References section these 13 "references" that are not cited in the article.
Newross (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of slashing-and-burning, you could have moved them to a section called "Further reading". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't see the point of having a references section, the two works of Obama are already in Written Works, others may be moved there or in further reading. Mendell's book could be moved in the Notes section. This latter one could be renamed to Notes and References. Also, we could move the nota bene there. That would reduce the size a bit. Cenarium ^Talk 15:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate resignation

Obama resigned from the senate officially last week so it should be changed that it says he is still the senator. I do not know the exact date of his resignation, but I'm sure it can be found somewhere on the web or otherwise. 68.228.154.57 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's resignation is effective tomorrow, so it will be updated tomorrow. --GoodDamon 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Please do not hide content within this page. It not only disables parts of the content list but make it impossible to navigate the page using search (which is what I presume we all do). I am more than happy to see the AA section archived myself but as long as it is both hidden and being actively edited it is unacceptable to hide it., for instance for vandalism removal or responding to comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When I re-closed it, I was not aware that anyone was actively continuing the discussion inside. However, that section specifically discusses what amounts to a BLP violation, so I'm against reopening it, and would rather people accept the overwhelming consensus that it established. --GoodDamon 17:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency about Columbia College, not Columbia University

Columbia University has many undergraduate colleges. By far the most prestigious one, Columbia College, is the one from which Obama graduated. It is confusing to list his alma mater as Columbia University, since that could include the far lesser-ranked women's school, engineering school, or a couple others. Also, for the sake of consistency and parallelism, it should be referred to the same way his school at Harvard is referred to. So, either he should be listed as an alumnus of Columbia College and Harvard Law School, or as an alumnus of Columbia University and Harvard University. I edited it the former, since it is more specific and informative. However, the only thing I feel strongly about is that it MUST be consistent.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Columbia College is the name of at least eight distinct schools (see the DAB page). The name of the school Obama graduated from is Columbia College of Columbia University. That doesn't roll off the tongue as well (nor fit as easily in an infobox). I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I see that the answer is not immediately obvious. LotLE×talk 02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Columbia University is all that is needed.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Columbia College is the generally used term for alums.LedRush (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then just put it as [[Columbia College of Columbia University|Columbia University]] ? Formatting fits, and it points to the right place. Tarc (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This just seems to be getting far too involved with minutiae. 1) Are colleges within a university separate, independent entities? Forgive the crude conceptualization, but regardless of whatever stuff comes out any of your orifices, it still came out of you. I'll bet his tuition checks were written out to "Columbia University", not "Columbia College of Columbia University". 2) For the case of why Harvard Law School is spelled out instead of just Harvard University ... well, it is a professional degree school. It doesn't churn out a variety of majors or career fields, it produces lawyers, period. Just like the medical school, which would naturally be listed as Harvard Medical School. 3) Having the info box show "Columbia University", but the article text call out the specific college he was enrolled in, seems to strike a fair balance between format consistency and factual accuracy. My two-cents worth ... Fredmdbud (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the diploma over my computer desk which was issued to me when I completed my bachelors program at Columbia College, a few years before Obama. It was issued by the trustees of Columbia University. There are a few schools in the Columbia University family which do issue their own degrees, but the College is not one of them. Even Barnard College doesn't issue its own degrees, even though it actually has its own Board of Trustees (unlike Columbia College.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate resignation continued

Obama has resigned from the Senate effective Sunday. Infoboxes etc need to be updated. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.63.3 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until his resignation is announced. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a done deal: [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Legislation in the US Senate

In 2005 he alomg with most of the Senate voted in favor of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 which made it more diofficult for humans to declare chapter 7. They would be forced into chapter 14. The current bankruptcy code with its prohibition on Article I bankruptcy judges from cram down modification of loans secured by owner occupied primary residences -- commonly and incorrectly called mortgages because the mortgage is the security interest which an owner of property encumbers by pledging it as collateral for a loan. This is importanjt today because the financial crisis has as one of the major causes bad loans secured by these homes and the inability to work out these loans 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)LaidOff (talk)uses

Validity of the term 'President Elect'

Calling Barack Obama president-elect because of "consensus" is the most retarded thing I ever heard. You can agree on it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that YOU ARE WRONG. Basically what you're saying is that if I rounded up enough people to form a consensus I could change this article to say that Obama was a woman. This is not a gray issue and cannot be treated as such.

If, God forbid, Obama died before December 15, Joe Biden would not automatically get Obama's Electoral College votes. Why? Because, in the eyes of the constitution, Barack Obama is merely a US Senator.

Second, Obama is not the first African-American president. Warren G. Harding had enough African-American blood to be recognized as black in the eyes of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"The most retarded thing" you've ever heard? You must not get out much. Check Limbaugh's website sometime, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a collection of information from reliable published sources, not an arbiter of truth, and certainly not a publisher of original material. Indeed, the basis for inclusion of material here is explicitly stated to be verifiability, not truth. If the overwhelming majority of sources refers to Obama as president-elect, and as African American, then we will probably do so too. Of course, if you know of a reliable source that clearly states exactly why everyone else is wrong about this (as distinct from arguments that you make yourself) then by all means say so. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of rumors and speculation about 4 or 5 past Presidents having partial African American roots. This peaked my curiosity a few days ago, but all it pretty much amounts to is rumors. I looked for a couple hours and couldn't find anything definitive. I saw several say this was highly likely regarding Harding, Jackson, and some others but that was it. I doubt anyone coulod ever prove this, or find a reliable source for it. Landon1980 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This mish-mash of half-truths and conspiracy theory really had no place in a Wikipedia article. If a president-elect dies before the Electoral College vote, no one truly can say what would happen, as there are a wide variety of state laws covering whether or if Electors can deviate from their state's vote. As to the second part regarding Harding, that one or two of his grand-parents may have been African-American is based on a single, quite controversial, and not widely accepted historian's account. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a president-elect died before December 15, by federal law no posthumous votes count. This means Obama would not be president. The federal policy in place allows the DNC to nominate a new candidate to replace Obama. I might concede the Harding point, but there is no room for argument on the issue of Obama being president-elect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. To be blunt, it really doesn't matter if WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG. What matters is that we are doing the job of an encyclopedia and of Wikipedia, and that is reporting what everyone in reliable sources says, and what is commonly accepted by the academic community, not you theories and worldviews that you KNOW ARE RIGHT. After a person is elected president, they are called the president-elect. What you believe to be the racial ancestry of the 29th president is quite irrelevant here, unless reliable sources agree with you. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such federal law, as this matter of Electoral votes is entirely for the states to decide. That is why if such a scenario happened it would be an unpredictable mess, as some states would hold Electors to vote for whoever won their state, while others would be technically free to vote as they like. Either way, none of this has any place in this article. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof:http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-12-0198.html

No ballot has been cast for Obama yet. We elected a slate of electors, not the man. Read the constitution.Adamc714 (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Adamc714, the point I wanted to make is that Harding being African American is just a rumor that was never really proven true or false. Here is a pretty good article about it if you are interested. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the Harding point completely. But I will not drop the president-elect point because the constitution is so blatantly clear on the issue.Adamc714 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To be able to say "the sources are wrong" it isn't really enough to provide primary sources (e.g. the US Constitution) unless the interpretation of those sources is so simple as to be beyond question. We really need secondary sources to interpret those primary sources. In other words, what we really need is for a respected magazine or newspaper to write an article that says, "you know, everyone calls him president-elect but he's not really" and "he isn't really the first black president". We can't just say that we know such-and-such to be true and we also can't combine sources saying different things to deduce a conclusion which is different to what those sources say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument. Will this source work even though it isn't a news publication?

Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale, says in his boom "America's Constitution: A Biography:" "Contemporary culture contributes to America's ignorance about the Electoral College...Take, for instance, the term 'president-elect.' We are so eager to annoint a new leader we oft forget that the president-elect is not actually elected until December, when the Electoral College meets...Essentially, we modern Americans have grown too liberal with our terminology; the president-elect is no actually so until the official ballots are counted. Ater all, the Electors always have the potential to surprise us all." (p. 237) I know I can't get this online, but this is a scholarly book. Does this further my argument at all?Adamc714 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying, and you may very well be correct. However, wikipedia is based on verifiablity, not truth. Pretty much all the sources we have call him the president-elect, so ther really isn't anything we can do about it. I hope that made sense. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good source. I think perhaps a footnote could be added to the term "president elect" in the lead section, to explain this. That might make everyone happy (or at least, everyone might be willing to accept it). What do others think? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. That would really clarify everything for all readers. I understand the point you are making with verifiability, not truth, being the foundation, but this footnote would be both verifiable and true.Adamc714 (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I could live with it, sounds like a good idea. Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The US law covering Presidential transitions recognises Obama as President elect. The actual link to the law was buried somewhere in the archives in a previous discussion. If by US law he is recognised as President elect then he is. Dr.K. (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind sharing that link? Landon1980 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[10] Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks Grsz. Here's another link and the quote:

The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.

From the law. Dr.K. (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's TRUE, but can you verify that the Administrator has ascertained Obama as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs)

Well, they did just have him over. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From President-elect "Strictly speaking, a person cannot become U.S. president-elect without having won the balloting in the Electoral College; since the ballots are not counted until Jan. 6, the winner is only president-elect for 15 calendar days until taking office Jan. 20. However, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 provides that the Administrator of the General Services Administration[1], even before the electoral vote in December, may certify the apparent successful presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the November general election as "president-elect" and "vice-president elect" for the purposes of receiving presidential transition funds and the use of federal offices and communications services prior to the beginning of the new administration on January 20. The current President-elect of the United States of America is Barack Obama." Landon1980 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts):Just to be clear, I made the same point as Adamc until I found and posted the law referenced above. While I dropped the issue, I recognize that the law only serves to define the term for the purposes of that specific law (as is usual for laws and contrancts). If the term is incorrect in other venues (particularly the US constitution which cannot be changed by federal (or any other) law), it may still be worth a mention. I don't believe this issue should make it into the article itself, but a footnote couldn't hurt. However, because at least some laws define the term to include presumptive winners, and because virtually all of the media refers to Obama as president-elect, I don't think the issue is really that important to include. But as a footnote, it couldn't hurt.LedRush (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Reply to Adam: Yes I can. From the de facto actions of the administrator. He gave Obama the change.gov website to facilitate the transition. However this is irrelevant as it is clear that there is another interpretation of the term "President elect" not deriving from the Constitution. Dr.K. (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could there still not be a footnote with a brief explanation. Looks like they have just certified him as president-elect for transitional purposes, even though it is not yet official. Landon1980 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be. That text would need a consensus discussion as well. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have any suggestions? Landon1980 (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the publication date of the Yale source? Does it predate the 1963 law? Also the President-elect has been edited without citing any source to backup its "strictly"..."cannot" claim. Its original research without citation and should be rolled back accordingly unless this Yale cite suffices. Modocc (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Landon: Such footnote would carry legal and constitutional arguments in a tiny space and would confuse the reader. Such discussion is better undertaken at the President-Elect article. Dr.K. (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't these technicalities be brought up on the President-elect article? This whole thing could be resolved by including a snippet in that article about when President-elect technically begins and when it begins in widespread usage. I don't see why this needs to be sorted out here at all. --GoodDamon 04:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is the logical conclusion of my remarks just above :) Dr.K. (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. My arguments are always logical conclusions. :) Seriously, this is a lot of sound and fury over nothing much. No change needs to be made to this article at all. Not even a footnote. It's the wrong article for defining the term. It's use is widespread in the news media, and correct by U.S. law. Enough said. Get the technicalities into the correct article, and anyone interested in those technicalities can read it. --GoodDamon 04:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I also think that the author of the cite is clearly stating his own opinion and not a consensus opinion, thus would require additional sources anyway. Modocc (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We have other cites in the archived discussion.LedRush (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Led Rush you are going need to trot them out here at the president-elect article if you want this to go further. Seriously. Modocc (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe a footnote is appropriate to clarify everything. This is critical information that needs mentioning. Also, the Yale source is from 2005.Adamc714 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(2 ecs)How about something like: "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and the office of the ______ under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect." LedRush (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't official yet, I really don't see how a footnote could harm anything. The footnote could say something like "Though not offically voted in until December 15, he has been certified by ____ for transitional purposes" Landon1980 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec):First you don't mention the law at all. It is the 1963 law of transition that determines this not the administrator. Second it would be awkward to have a mini legal-constitutional argument inside a footnote. Third if by law he is declared the President Elect then that's what he is. Dr.K. (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But of course we could add the 1963 law to the footnote. I'll amend my suggestion above.LedRush (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the 1963 law allows for the administrator to determine who the president elect is for the purposes of the allocation of transition funds; Second, there is no mini legal constitutional arguemt; Third, the law defines a term as for use in the law. Nothing more.LedRush (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. So we agree he is the President Elect. Dr.K. (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement above so people cannot, either deliberately or not, misrepresent what I said.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly happens on December 15 then? If it is already official why does the electoral college even meet? Landon1980 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the golden question of American elections. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To validate the election results after the administrator's validation as provided by the 1963 law. Dr.K. (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college meets for the purposes of the constitutional transition of power. The 1963 law deals only with the logistics of the transition (funds and whatnot). If the winner of the election dies before the Dec 15 vote or after, there are vastly different possible consequences.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, under law, Barak Obama is the PE regardless of the possible disaster scenarios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction...under one law, Obama is the PE. Under the constitution, it seems he isn't.LedRush (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No so fast Led. I thought the Constitution was just a framework for the laws. The laws determine our actions. If the law is declared unconstitutional then I would be convinced. Dr.K. (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. But this law limits the definition to this law alone. See: "The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act"LedRush (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This law was passed and is recognised by the US government. Therefore in the eyes of the government and for the purposes of transition he is the PE. That makes him official. Dr.K. (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is the President-elect until or if some calamity arises. And it becomes official January 6th, not December 15th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They pretty much go ahead and certify him for the purposes of transition, as the apparent president-elect. It will not be official until the elecoral college meet. This is proof that some readers are going to question this, so I really don't see the harm of a brief footnote. Landon1980 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not official until the joint session, on January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally official. Officially recognised by the government, by virtue of the 1963 law, throughout the transition. Dr.K. (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It's "apparent" until January 6th, and "official" at that point, and either way the law regards him as President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "apparent". It sounds like "presumptive". I would prefer "legal" or "officially recognised by the government". Dr.K. (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The legal use of "President-elect" encompasses both the "apparent" winner (from November 4th) and the "official" winner (coming on January 6th) hence there is no need for a prefix such as "presumptive" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I disagree. We have a legally and officially recognised PE for the purpose of transition, not an apparent one. And then he becomes a constitutionally recognised PE in January. No need for footnotes. Dr.K. (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not all of this dealt with by wikilinking President-elect? If you're curious what this means, click the link. If not, don't. This seems much better than a footnote. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Dr.K. (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear there is a distinct possibility that some readers may be under the impression he is the presumptive president-elect and be confused by this, while fully knowing what a president-elect is. A footnote could briefly explain the issue. What harm could a simple footnote do? Landon1980 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How could they be confused if everyone is calling him "President Elect" without the "presumptive"? Dr.K. (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care enough about this issue to argue my position repeatedly. If you think a footnote would somehow harm the article then fine, I don't really care either way. I was simply taking the reader into consideration. I've heard a lot of people talk about how he will not actually be the president-elect until a later date, the question is googled very frequently. To me, if there is a pretty good possibility the reader may have questions about this a simple footnote is warranted. Again though, I don't care enough to sit here and debate about it for hours. So I'll drop out of this now and you just do whatever you wish. Landon1980 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A footnote after the linked President-elect, explaining it in one simple sentence for those who don't feel like reading the President-elect megillah, would seem reasonable. Especially as there have been editors here who didn't understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The confusion arises because there are two definitions of President Elect. One is the legal definition for the purposes of transition and the other is the constitutionally enabled definition. Both are valid. But one way or the other the title of the President Elect is to be used without qualifiers. A footnote is a kind of qualifier. In its small space and with the small sized font this point cannot be elucidated in a satisfactory manner and it will confuse the reader further. That's why we have wikilinks. Dr.K. (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

←Per Dr.K. That is why we have wikilinks. And, to take the point one step further - there are likely a couple of dozen articles that are now correctly referring to Obama as President elect, with wikilink to that article. Maybe more. Is anyone seriously suggesting that each one should have a footnote explaining this arcana - or should I add a footnote here that explains that it's actually arcanum?? This is an absurdity, as only Wikipedia can do - we're talking about a few weeks of this slightly ambiguous time, and all sources - all of them - refer to him as President-elect. We are certainly on safe ground, and following our mandate, using the terminology that all sources use, and we link to an article whose job it is to explain in greater detail precisely how it works. It does not matter that lots of people won't follow the link - it is there for readers to learn from, just as all of the others are. Our job is to be clear, neutral, concise, sourced, well-expressed, comprehensive - not to overrule commonsense widespread, sourced phrasing in favor of a technicality, however accurate it might be. All that footnote will do is confuse, not elucidate. And it will be moot in a few weeks, and then moot again on January 20. But we'll probably be arguing about it until then. Tvoz/talk 06:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reference. Arcane, as you put it, but interesting discussion nonetheless. All this ado about a footnote. Eventually vanishing at that. Quintessentially Wikipedian angst. Dr.K. (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether you think the footnote is needed or not, ask if the question: Is the article better for having the footnote? I feel like the people who don't want it seem to think it's unnecessary. It doesn't really make it worse, it's just not "right". The people who want it, though, think it makes the article better and more accurate. Couldn't we just add the footnote and end the talks that keep popping up. My suggestion above still seems appropriate: "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and adminstrator of the office of the transition under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect."LedRush (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Way too much, too wordy. All you need is President-elect as it is in the sentence, with a footnote right after it that says (down below) something like, "Obama is legally considered the "apparent" President-elect, which would become official once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.LedRush (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs you keep talking about "apparent". He is not "apparent". He is the legally recognised President Elect. There is no "apparent" qualification in this. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The legal definition is that "President-elect" is understood to mean the "apparent" winner based on the November 4th voting. Hence there is no need to say "presumptive President-elect", for example, because "President-elect" is already understood to include "presumptive", as applicable - until it becomes "official" on January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You called it, I quote from your comments above: legally considered the "apparent" President-elect. In the 1963 law there is no mention of "apparent" regarding the term "President elect". They just call him "President elect". So yes the 1963 law refers to an "apparent winner" but not "apparent" President-elect". Dr.K. (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

President-elect is a wikified term and is already used as such in this article. That term's Wikipedia article is the correct place for any and all explanation anyone finds necessary. Flatterworld (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What if they don't want to read that entire article and just want a simple explanation? It's just a courtesy to the reader. Keep in mind we do this encyclopedia for the reader, not for ourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If he is the legally recognised President Elect that should suffice. If they want to understand the nuances they read the PE article. A footnote is not the place to disambiguate constitutional/legal matters. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He is legal for the purposes of the 1963 Transition Act. In terms of actual succession, he is not legal.LedRush (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence the usefulness of an explanatory footnote. The constitution does not define the term "President-elect". The 1963 law does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not its purpose. Its purpose would be simply to inform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Response to Led: I agree. So if he is the legally recognised President Elect for transition purposes no need to disambiguate further in this article. Any further disambiguation can happen at the PE main article. In other words if he can legally be called "President Elect" even for temporary transition purposes and his legal status as such is fine we don't have to exhaustively define all the uses and nuances of the term in this article and especially in the limited confines of a footnote. Dr.K. (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the harm in the footnote. It accurately informs in one simple sentence. If people are interested slightly but don't want to weigh through the confusing PE article, they can see the footnote and understand. If people don't care, they'll never notice. If people care slightly and get interested in the PE article, then they can go there. There are only benefits to the footnote, no drawbacks. Baseball Bugs is correct: the purpose here is to inform.LedRush (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's assume you write a footnote. Your proposed footnote "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and the office of the ______ under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect" is a mini rebuttal argument against the legally accepted term for the transition. This needs a lot of work if it is to appear in a short and concise footnote. If we can find a suitable wording maybe. But not the way it currently stands. Dr.K. (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it appears to be making a pedantic argument or apology. Which is why I say it should read simply, "Obama is legally considered the "apparent" President-elect, which would become official once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." It's not an attempt at an apology of some kind, it's simply an explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. If you modify your suggestion to read: "Obama is considered the President-elect according to the 1963 transition act, a term which would become constitutionally validated once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." I am in agreement. Dr.K. (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a little more formalized and is merely informational without being apologetic, so it seems reasonable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said all along, a simple footnote is a good idea. It should be informative, and as brief as possible. Landon1980 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfect then. Let's add it. Dr.K. (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!LedRush (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Landon1980 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I just added it. Nice meeting you gentlemen. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One sidenote: I added the footnote after the period as per WP:MOS. It could not be attached to "President elect" because there is no punctuation mark following it. Dr.K. (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is he truly the president elect if the electors have not cast their votes? A few faithless electors and he will remain a senator. I don't the the political process is over until those votes are cast, are they?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It will not happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You might misunderstand. I am not speculating as to how the electors may or may not cast their votes. What I'm saying is that if the constitutional process has not completed to elect a president, how can he truly be the president elect. It is more a question of if it is accurate to so call him, not to as if he won the popular vote or not.I think this the process has a little more to go before that edit should have be made( hell what did all my political science profs know?). Maybe " president elect(presumptive)" or some such thing.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion, we have already covered all of this. Landon1980 (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'm a little concerned that the same discussion is going on in multiple places with different outcomes that impair overall consistency. One of the least used resources on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome that has been trying to get a policy on how to handle the aftermath of elections, after heavy edit wars following changes of power in Australia, Canada, Lousianna etc... The current suggestions were drawn up without much reference to the multi-step US election (indeed the suggested use of "President-elect" was to dampen down the "Rudd won the election, CHANGE THIS NOW!!!" type edits everywhere) so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome#Multiple stage elections in the hope for the long term we can get a clearer way forward for future elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I thought this president-elect dispute was settled, 'bout a week ago. Just think, it could go on for another month (as the Electoral College meet Dec 15); yikes. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It ain't over until the proverbial weight-challenged lady sings. Just look above. Moreover I think this could go all the way to 6 January. Dr.K. (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fomented in part by editors who hold out hope that the electoral college will screw the voters. That hasn't happened since about 1876. The electors are party loyalists. Who does anyone imagine they would turn the Presidency over to? Hillary Clinton? Ralph Nader? Or Sarah Palin, just as a practical joke on America? Come on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not 1876, 2000 was the last time the candidate with the popular vote lost the election. Landon1980 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking popular vote, I'm talking the electoral college voting getting screwed up. There was no electoral college issue in 2000 as such, just the question of which way Florida was to go, i.e. the popular vote within Florida. The fact that Bush lost the popular vote overall does not enter into it, constitutionally. Notice that the Florida electors did not suddenly switch to Al Gore in protest. No way, nohow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any "faithless electors" affecting the result in 1876 either. What there were was two sides each claiming the same 20 electors and a Commission settled the dispute, admittedly on party lines. And no-one knows for sure who the rightful winner was - I've even read some historians asserting that one candidate would have won a fair vote and the other a fair count. But all electors were on the basis of the relevant state popular votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The dispute won't go beyond Dece 15th. Nor do I believe presumptive president-elect is being pushed by anti-Obama editors (as far as the Constitution is concerned, nobody's been elected prez or vice prez [yet]). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "hold out hope" is too strong. "Fantasyland" is more like it. And it's not December 15th, it's January 6th. I don't recall for sure from 2004, but I don't think the electoral results are made public until the 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not made public 'til the Jan 6th. I just thought after Dec 15th, nobody would have trouble declaring Obama & Biden prez-elect & vice prez-elect (as we all asumingly trust the Electors). GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, until the 6th and/or until the electoral votes are made public, there is just as much "doubt" as there is today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• To end this discussion, here is the secret which only a view chosen ones knew: I will become the next "Magnificent clean-keeping President of the United States of America". Now it's out so go and feed the hungry media  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• So it shall be written; so it shall be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Joking aside please note: Lulu of the Lotus Eaters originally moved the compromise footnote to Barack_Obama#President-elect_of_the_United_States and here is the note. I agree with him. Please do not keep reverting to put it in the lead. Per WP:MOS there should be no notes in the lead. This is a featured article. Let's observe a few rules here and there. Dr.K. (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)